Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

[ganganvince]

Please read the article in full

At present, these ‘safe and legal’ routes are different from claiming asylum in the UK. Many people who have been granted asylum in the UK do not qualify for any of these ‘safe and legal’ routes. For those who do qualify for these routes, there are likely to be practical limitations in the country they are applying from which would make these routes inaccessible.

As I posted .... there are no safe and legal routes for asylum seekers

Not saying it is easy just that there are routes they are very limited and the asylum seeker would need family already settled here but in certain circumstances there are Routes

 

[ganganvince]

"Group 1 is for those who travelled directly and without delay to the UK from the country which they fled and who have a good cause for their unlawful entry and/or presence in the UK"

So that's people who flew here?

Braverman's parents being immigrants doesn't mean you can trust her policies

Rishi Sunak, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman are children of migrants, but they all support the inhumane Rwanda refugee policy.

metro.co.uk

It is difficult and needs sorting but to say there are no safe and legal routes is just not correct very few people qualify and govt have made it as difficult as possible for those who do I am not getting involved in whether the rules are morally correct or not but to say there are no routes is just not correct.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

"Group 1 is for those who travelled directly and without delay to the UK from the country which they fled and who have a good cause for their unlawful entry and/or presence in the UK"

So that's people who flew here?

Braverman's parents being immigrants doesn't mean you can trust her policies

Rishi Sunak, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman are children of migrants, but they all support the inhumane Rwanda refugee policy.

metro.co.uk

Can't mean anything else could it? Delay must exclude direct transport by sea.

And committed an immigration offence by obtaining a visa by fraudulent representation or travelling on false documents.

There isn't a visa to "claim asylum" so you have declare the reason for travel as something else (most likely tourism).

So that route isn't legal because they committed an offence to reach the UK (just like the people in small boats), the fact that they have a complete defence is immaterial to whether it's a legal route, because the people in small boats also have a complete defence.

 

[Vic]

It is difficult and needs sorting but to say there are no safe and legal routes is just not correct very few people qualify and govt have made it as difficult as possible for those who do I am not getting involved in whether the rules are morally correct or not but to say there are no routes is just not correct.

How about, there are no safe and legal routes for the vast majority of people crossing the Channel in small boats?

If there were, they wouldn't cross the Channel in small boats.

 

[Vic]

Not saying it is easy just that there are routes they are very limited and the asylum seeker would need family already settled here but in certain circumstances there are Routes
View attachment 89731

So you effectively side with the Tories saying people should use safe and legal routes, knowing they are "extremely limited".

 

[bluethrunthru]

How does this berk think we are to patrol ALL the coastline of the UK?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Build a wall up the English channel. That'll stop them.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Build a wall up the English channel. That'll stop them.

Wretched Tories, not maintaining the Martello Towers and letting Rye silt up.

 

[ganganvince]

How about, there are no safe and legal routes for the vast majority of people crossing the Channel in small boats?

If there were, they wouldn't cross the Channel in small boats.

That is correct the only comment I made was that the statement there are no safe and legal routes is not correct your statement is.

 

[ganganvince]

So you effectively side with the Tories saying people should use safe and legal routes, knowing they are "extremely limited".

No I just commented that @Ifwecouldjust....... had made an incorrect statement no more no less.